You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.

You are really confused. †I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.

I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.

Let me try this again.

DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?

You are the one who asked "How will it overcome the current paradigm?" and it's not my fault that's where that question ends up going. At least can't say I was ignoring you. I was just being as precise as I can, and you maybe got more information than you needed but at least it's in there somewhere.

I'm now though just drawing a big blank wondering what more you could even ask for in a theory that made what is most important to know about the mysterious insect central complex quite obvious, and all else your model is no help for figuring out how it works.

What do you expect a theory to do and what does that accomplish?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

† †Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.

I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The Starship - We Built This City went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.

It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...

Missing the point yet again, Gary? All IDC is a bait-and-switch, where whatever actual examples can be found, they correspond to "ordinary design", but the argument comes around eventually to asking the reader to accept an inference to "rarefied design" as if it were just the same thing. The point isn't that this is obviously a part of Dembski's argumentation, but also that your posts here do that, too. That's why the linked article is relevant. "Rarefied design" advocacy isn't a failing unique to Dembski.

You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.

You are really confused. †I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.

I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.

Let me try this again.

DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?

You are the one who asked "How will it overcome the current paradigm?" and it's not my fault that's where that question ends up going. At least can't say I was ignoring you. I was just being as precise as I can, and you maybe got more information than you needed but at least it's in there somewhere.

I'm now though just drawing a big blank wondering what more you could even ask for in a theory that made what is most important to know about the mysterious insect central complex quite obvious, and all else your model is no help for figuring out how it works.

What do you expect a theory to do and what does that accomplish?

To tack on to what oldman said

So, you cannot actually state a single thing that your notion actually does or predicts, correct?

So, you cannot actually state a single piece of evidence that supports your notion, correct?

All you have is a big pile of words with "intelligence" liberally sprinkled throughout.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

† †Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.

I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.

I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The Starship - We Built This City went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.

It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...

Missing the point yet again, Gary? All IDC is a bait-and-switch, where whatever actual examples can be found, they correspond to "ordinary design", but the argument comes around eventually to asking the reader to accept an inference to "rarefied design" as if it were just the same thing. The point isn't that this is obviously a part of Dembski's argumentation, but also that your posts here do that, too. That's why the linked article is relevant. "Rarefied design" advocacy isn't a failing unique to Dembski.

I already understand that what is found elsewhere does not amount to acceptable scientific theory. I am on that point more or less agreeing with you. I'm sure ones who only got into trouble because of it, have no problem at all agreeing, that it was just enough information to get into unexpected trouble with. But that is the past, that I can see you need to put behind real bad too.

There has been such a myriad of ideas that have been thrown around over the years, none even want to have to first memorize a 1000 phrase vocabulary list then over the next ten years take each opinionated argument one by one in detail. We could easily spend months just getting you to at most half-qualify your "ordinary design" concept well enough to be possible to use in theory.

I make sure not to waste the time of scientists and educators who only need to know how the model works.

Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

I am not being (overly) metaphorical by saying that what the theory must most do here is make real progress working on mysteries of science at the table where all evidence is to be presented for judging which will then fill the blank pages where it gets written down for history to see, as in: †

The result of scientifically challenging this theory is now literally the pioneering of new areas of science. Coding an intelligent causation event is here a milestone, even breakthrough in understanding the emergence of intelligence. The theory explains what the next level has for a circuit schematic and all necessary for such models to be written and tested. That is what a theory is for, to find new ways to answer questions that everyone has. When it can answer questions, all are then glad weíre no longer stuck in the past with the confusing barrage of speculations that as we can see literally consume Wesley, who is more or less saying that I should not take it seriously when I already donít because of how easy it is (for number of reasons) to actually go crazy trying to make sense of it all. I spare everyone that frustration by having what did work and was needed for theory that here links to the best by-far ďWhat is Life?Ē answer on the internet from a respected education expert who very well sums up what is important for science teachers and us to know. It is complete enough that the theory is then off to wherever it happens to go after that, instead of stuck trying to answer the question of ďWhat is Life?Ē without having first studied professor Koeslag.

We donít need to go back to where Wesley thinks is important for us to begin. Or need to meet some other gauge of what a theory is, which here requires successful experience with it, before even knowing what a theory really is. Some having to hate it just goes with the territory. When the anger is tremendous Collective Intelligence Theory starts making even more sense after theory that was supposed to have been impossible forms inside a collective that includes scientists.

A theory is something that is read which explains how something works which in turn gets science noisily moving along toward new models to explain things (such as light) different ways. Theory being taunting, teasing and all the rest makes it (for a scientist too) like moth to a flame, where I was just one before you who reached its source then got singed real good but was OK.

Considering how there is now theory to predict very scientifically interesting intelligent causation events the theory is well enough already working on a mystery, going wherever it leads, then eventually needing to jump into this forum. Needing more than that for it to qualify as a theory is missing the point of what a theory needs to be for it to be scientifically useful and get around. Just being able to not need to care about thousands of pages of philosophy mixed mess that there once was for theory, only helps indicate how much real progress has been made, by at least us.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.

Does your notion actually do anything?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Did you see the bit in bold Gary? That's what you need to be concerned with.

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.

Does your notion actually do anything?

I'll say so! Just check the new find here to go along with all else now explaining what this theory can do for you: †Space Truckin' - Deep Purple

You might need to have been there to know what it's like, but we can do all kinds of things, and you can't stop our from out of the future theory fun that goes along with it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I do enjoy it when Gary refers to himself as 'we' - as if he's part of some new-wave-punk-science collective.

Gary, there is no 'we'. There is just 'you'. No one else on the planet is using your 'theory', no one else on the planet understands your 'theory', no one else on the planet cares about your 'theory'....there's only you.

Twenty pages in and surprise-surprise you have failed to convince anyone of anything, and, as demonstrated above, any request to test your 'theory' is met by your standard epic hand-waving and links to musical Youtube videos.

Which forum are you going to land at next, Gary? You must have some ideas - give us a hint so we can again watch the exact same thing unfold there.

You might need to have been there to know what it's like, but we I can do all kinds of things drugs.

FTFY

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Gary, what does your theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Are you Is your theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

It appears that my stomping on and ruining their Popper-powered whac-a-mole game is not being taken lightly. Now, only a drug crazed crazy person could argue with what has since around 1980 been the foundation of their science. Oh bad me. †

This seriously is where I draw the line with all the ways some have to stop valuable scientific progress, especially that useless arm-chair excuse for giving up before even getting started. None can be excused from having to show evidence to the contrary of what is clearly enough stated in the theory. There not being any, still speaks for itself.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It appears that my stomping on and ruining their Popper-powered whac-a-mole game is not being taken lightly. Now, only a drug crazed crazy person could argue with what has since around 1980 been the foundation of their science. Oh bad me. †

This seriously is where I draw the line with all the ways some have to stop valuable scientific progress, especially that useless arm-chair excuse for giving up before even getting started. None can be excused from having to show evidence to the contrary of what is clearly enough stated in the theory. There not being any, still speaks for itself.

i would appreciate if, before you flounce out, you explain to us just what the fuck it is that you think your "theory" explains anyway.

because, ummmmm, you never did that shit. posting timecube graphics or True Tard Text Walls is not a substitute for a simple "Hey, my theory predicts this shit and this shit and that shit and says that this shit won't happen".

it's fun to play cocktease though, isn't it? you have a history of doing that, luv

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I will so not miss your swearing at me for giving you what you asked for, and not mind being expected to bend over for you, I hardly know what to say right now. All I can think of is: If you want to go then that is fine by me.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

'Sports' The position of one who draws no opponent for a round in a tournament and so advances to the next round. Idiom: by the bye/by.

I.E. you are giving up. As let's face it your responses are becoming less and less relevant to anything at all that's been said in this thread.

I am not going anywhere. I'm still here waiting for something better than brush-offs. And do sometimes get good questions, like from The whole truth who has asked good ones.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.